Omprakash Tamrakar S/o Chhaganlal Aged About 37 Years R/o Aaditya Nagar, Kushabhau Bhawan, Ward v. 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Durg Distt. Durg
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11681-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 886 of 2025 Omprakash Tamrakar S/o Chhaganlal Aged About 37 Years R/o Aaditya Nagar, Kushabhau Bhawan, Ward No. 20, Durg, P.S. Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Accused) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Banshilal Sahu Aged About 42 Years
Legal Reasoning
Reader, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.03.2025 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.10 17:49:01 +0530 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) to quash the proceedings of criminal case No. RCC/20062/2024 between State of CG vs. Omprakash Tamrakar pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg (C.G.) pursuant to cognizance taken in relation to Crime No. 434 of 2024 registered at Police Station Durg, District Durg (C.G.) and also charge-sheet dated 20.10.2024. (ii) to grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/respondent No. 2 is presently reader of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and vide memo dated 24.08.2024 directed the respondent No. 1 to taking cognizance against the petitioner as the petitioner has submitted Kisan Kitab No. 2418572 in which while he stood surety in Criminal Case No. 3460 of 2019 between Kailash Sao vs. Ravi Kumar Sao, but the same has not been mentioned in the said Kisan Kitab and further perusal of Kisan Kitab shows that neither duplicate Kisan Kitab was issued nor any endorsement to that effect has been mentioned and thus, the petitioner has snatched the page and also used forged seal of the concerned Tahsildar. He also submits that after receiving above memo the SHO Police Station registered FIR against the petitioner and started investigation and filed charge-sheet against the 3 petitioner on 21.10.2024 before the concerned Court. Vide order-sheet dated 21.10.2204, the concerned Court recorded the fact of submission of charge-sheet and thereafter, proceeded with the matter and on 12.02.2025 the matter was fixed for framing of charge and same has been adjourned to 03.03.2025. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concerned Court while sending memo to the Police Station has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has never snatched the page from the Kisan Kitab and it is original one and further if no endorsement is found in the Kisan Kitab it is fault of their own ofÏcer of the Court and moreover, the case in which the petitioner stood surety i.e. Criminal Case No. RCC/3460/2019 has already been disposed off on 09.05.2024 prior to submission of Kisan Kitab by the petitioner on 24.08.2024. Since the order taking cognizance taken against the petitioner is illegal, and therefore, further proceedings of the same is also is in abuse of process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order registered FIR against the petitioner under Sections 318(4), 338 and 339 of the BNS is totally illegal as there is no any evidence available on record to show that the petitioner has presented the duplicate Kisan Kitab or use seal of the concerned Tahsildar, and therefore, prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner. He further states that neither report from concerned Tahsildar i.e. Saja has been obtained prior to registration of offence nor any material regarding snatching of Kisan Kitab has been produced, and therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4 6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the trial is in progress. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. From perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance, it transpires that in the Criminal Case No. 5734 of 2017 (Chhabilal Sahu vs. Nitin Dodani), the surety, Omprakash, son of Chhagnlal, aged about 37 years, resident of village Devkar, Tehsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.), presented a Kisan book No. P. 2418572. The same surety had obtained bail in the Criminal Case No. 3460 of 2019 (Kailash Sahu vs. Ravi Kumar Sahu), using the same Kisan book No. P. 2418572. However, there is no 5 mention of the previous bail in the Kisan book. Additionally, there is no record in the presented Kisan book of the Tehsildar, Durg, issuing a duplicate or new Kisan book to the surety. This suggests that the surety has tampered with the documents by removing pages and misusing the Tehsildar's seal, therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan